Shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), developed at global scale, comprise narrative descriptions and quantifications of future world developments that are intended for climate change scenario analysis. However, their extension to national and regional scales can be challenging. Here, we present SSP narratives co-developed with stakeholders for the agriculture and food sector in Finland. These are derived from intensive discussions at a workshop attended by approximately 39 participants offering a range of sectoral perspectives. Using general background descriptions of the SSPs for Europe, facilitated discussions were held in parallel for each of four SSPs reflecting very different contexts for the development of the sector up to 2050 and beyond. Discussions focused on five themes from the perspectives of consumers, producers and policy-makers, included a joint final session and allowed for post-workshop feedback. Results reflect careful sector-based, national-level interpretations of the global SSPs from which we have constructed consensus narratives. Our results also show important critical remarks and minority viewpoints. Interesting features of the Finnish narratives compared to the global SSP narratives include greater emphasis on environmental quality; significant land abandonment in SSPs with reduced livestock production and increased plant-based diets; continued need for some farm subsidies across all SSPs and opportunities for diversifying domestic production under scenarios of restricted trade. Our results can contribute to the development of more detailed national long-term scenarios for food and agriculture that are both relevant for local stakeholders and researchers as well as being consistent with global scenarios being applied internationally.

COVID-19 has revealed how challenging it is to manage global, systemic and compounding crises. Like COVID-19, climate change impacts, and maladaptive responses to them, have potential to disrupt societies at multiple scales via networks of trade, finance, mobility and communication, and to impact hardest on the most vulnerable. However, these complex systems can also facilitate resilience if managed effectively. This review aims to distil lessons related to the transboundary management of systemic risks from the COVID-19 experience, to inform climate change policy and resilience building. Evidence from diverse fields is synthesised to illustrate the nature of systemic risks and our evolving understanding of resilience. We describe research methods that aim to capture systemic complexity to inform better management practices and increase resilience to crises. Finally, we recommend specific, practical actions for improving transboundary climate risk management and resilience building. These include mapping the direct, cross-border and cross-sectoral impacts of potential climate extremes, adopting adaptive risk management strategies that embrace heterogenous decision-making and uncertainty, and taking a broader approach to resilience which elevates human wellbeing, including societal and ecological resilience.

The Arctic has warmed almost four times faster than the rest of the globe during the past four decades. This has led to multiple impacts in the Arctic such as the melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, sea ice retreat, permafrost thaw, altered species distribution and abundance, changes in hydrology and snow conditions, and altered wildfire regimes. These documented and projected impacts in the region can also propagate across borders, creating risks and opportunities requiring adaptation responses well beyond the Arctic. By undertaking a systematic literature review that uses a conceptual framework for cross‐border climate change impacts, we demonstrate how local impacts of the type described above, which are often analyzed separately in the literature, may initiate knock‐on effects that can be transmitted and transformed across borders. We illustrate examples of six categories of cross‐border risks resulting from this impact transmission and potentially requiring adaptation. These concern biophysical impacts, trade, infrastructure, finance, geopolitical relationships and human security and social justice. We examine potential adaptation options for responding to such cross‐border risks that are of relevance for Europe. The systemic approach taken in this paper promotes improved understanding of trade‐offs between potential benefits and risks, assists priority‐setting for targeting adaptation interventions, and can account for the important role of non‐climatic drivers in amplifying or dampening the cross‐border risks of climate change impacts in the Arctic.This article is categorized under: Trans‐Disciplinary Perspectives > Regional Reviews Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Observed Impacts of Climate Change Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Evaluating Future Impacts of Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases and Analogies

In an interconnected world, climate change impacts can cascade across sectors and regions, creating systemic risks. Here we analyse cascading climate change impacts on the EU, originating from outside the region, and identify critical intervention points for adaptation. Using network analysis, we integrate stakeholder-co-produced impact chains with quantitative data for 102 countries across foreign policy, human security, trade and finance. Our archetypal impact cascade model reveals critical intervention points related to water, livelihoods, agriculture, infrastructure and economy, and violent conflict. Livelihood instability, with violence exacerbating conditions in conflict-prone regions, tends to amplify risks of cascading impacts emerging from low-income countries. High-income countries can trigger cascading impacts through, for example, reduced crop exports. Our findings highlight the importance of policy coherence in addressing interconnected vulnerabilities rather than isolated risks. Thus, agricultural intensification without integrated water management may exacerbate scarcity, whereas safeguarding livelihoods alleviates cascading risks related to forced migration, violent conflict and instability.